Standing Committee F

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Roger Gale: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to make some housekeeping announcements. For ease of continuity, I am taking the Chair until 10.30 am to monitor the debate on the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, which met yesterday. The resolution is at the back of today's amendment paper.
 I have courteously been given notice that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be taking evidence on the Bill at 5.30 pm on Monday, 5 March, when the Minister of State will give evidence. Those Committee members who are available and wish to attend are entitled to do so as observers.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move,
 That the Programming Order of the Committee of 6th February be amended—
 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting at the end the words ``and on Wednesday 7th March at half-past Ten o'clock''.
 (2) in paragraph (3), by substituting ``15'' for ``14''
 (3) in paragraph (4)—
(a) by inserting the words ``New Clauses'' after the words ``Schedule 1''; and
(b) by omitting the words ``New Clauses'' where they appear after the words ``Clause 132'';
 (4) by substituting the following for paragraph (5)—
``(5) the proceedings at the 9th to 15th sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE SittingProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings 9thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 10thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 11thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 12thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 310.00 pm 13thClauses 70 to 851 pm 14thClause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules— 15thClause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules5 pm"

The resolution does three things. First, it reorders our business so that we may discuss the new clauses dealing principally with animal rights at a more convenient time, on Tuesday. Secondly, it adds a 15th formal sitting of the Committee next Wednesday. Thirdly, it introduces a series of guillotines to ensure that we have a balanced debate on the issues covered by the Bill. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may disagree, but the discussion in the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday was acrimonious. He used language about me and other Labour Members that was unacceptable. I do not know whether he intends to repeat it this morning--

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. May I reiterate our oft-spoken objection that the Programming Sub-Committee's proceedings are not recorded. The Minister is now referring to discussions that occurred last night and only those of us who were fortunate enough to be present know what happened. It would have been helpful if there had been an official record of what happened because it would then have been possible to refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Roger Gale: I am not sure that that is a point of order for the Chair, but I shall repeat my view that it is desirable that a record is made of at least the formal part of the meetings of the Programming Sub-Committee. However, that is entirely a matter for the Modernisation Committee. The Chairmen's Panel will make recommendations to that Committee in due course.

Charles Clarke: I agree with your comments, Mr. Gale, and after discussion of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill I wrote to the Leader of the House with some views on the conduct of the Programming Sub-Committee for consideration by the Modernisation Committee. It is a pilot project, and from it we must learn its weaknesses and strengths. The point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has weight and should be considered.
 However, it is a fact that the meeting yesterday was acrimonious--I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman dissents from that--and much of the language used was difficult. I want to reflect on some of the points made. 
 On the amount of time that we have spent debating the Bill, I said on Second Reading that I hoped to be able to have 16 sittings. For reasons that the Committee knows, it was decided at the first Programming Sub-Committee to have 14 sittings, and we gave a commitment that we would be prepared to extend that. We have in fact had two extra sessions that were not anticipated and do not count as extra formal sittings of the Committee. 
 Through the programming resolution, we have allowed for 15, rather than 14, formal sittings. Rather than the 16 sittings that I originally specified in the House, we will now have 17—that is, 15 plus two evening sessions. The Opposition's proposal to have two extra sittings would have taken the original 14 to 16, so their charge that we are giving significantly less time than they want is unfounded. 
 On guillotines, my experience of the Committee is that although there have been some positive aspects—for example, last Tuesday's sittings were full of constructive debates and contributions—some time wasting took place during earlier sittings. All the debates have been in order, not only because they were regulated by you and your colleagues, Mr. Gale, but because all members of the Committee took the trouble to be in order. I shall cite two examples of time wasting. First, during one debate, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—a signed-up member of the criminal barristers' tendency—simply read for the record the Criminal Bar Association's evidence from the consultation process, which was one of 111 submissions. Although he had the right to do so, I saw no need for it, and it was time wasting. Secondly, we spent four and a half hours on clause 1—a long time with a great deal of time wasted in the process. 
 I pay tribute to hon. Members for the parts of the debate that were constructive. The Parliamentary Secretary and I tried to respond as constructively as possible. Neither he nor myself have spoken at undue length and we have always given way to allow for proper debate. Labour Members have universally spoken to the point and to effect. Surprisingly, I can say that the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have been almost pithy. He has been clear and to the point and has debated properly. That has not been my experience in previous Committees, where he has spoken at inordinate, lawyerly length. I praise the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), whose contributions, throughout the proceedings and without exception, have been constructive and to the point. 
 I cannot say the same of other Opposition Members. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General, has popped in and out of the Committee from time to time, has shown no evidence of having read or discussed the Bill, and has been repetitive ad nauseam on points of no substance.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Is it right for the Minister to be passing remarks of that sort about an hon. Member who is not present?

Roger Gale: As the Minister is aware, he is responsible for his own words, so that is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. It has always been the custom and courtesy of the House that if one Member intends to make a personal attack on another, he should seek to inform him first. I have no way of knowing whether that was done in this case.

Charles Clarke: I have not done so, because I worked on the assumption that all members of the Committee would be present this morning. Given the nature of the acrimonious exchanges last night, I felt it necessary to respond to the issues that were raised about my conduct and that of my hon. Friends and to set out my position.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. The Minister responded to my previous point of order by saying that he assumed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire would be present, which is why he gave him no notice that he intended to make a personal attack on him. Surely even if my right hon. and learned Friend had been present, it would have been necessary for the Minister to give him notice.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that no such requirement is placed upon Members, who are responsible for their own words, whether temperate or intemperate. It is certainly not a matter for the Chair, and I do not intend to take another point of order on it.

Charles Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I will talk to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the matter when he deigns to attend the Committee. I am responsible for, and have considered, my own words, and I must give my own assessment of events. Other hon. Members might disagree with it—that is a matter for them. In my opinion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not addressed the Bill seriously. The many extremely tedious exchanges on minor points that have taken place show that he does not understand the essence of the subject under discussion.
 Some of the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath were rather more serious. However, he, too, has spoken at inordinate length and extremely repetitively—I am thinking in particular of the discussion on the Criminal Bar Association—and that appears to have been a deliberate tactic. I exonerate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire from much of what I have to say on this matter. As with other Committees in which he has participated, in general he has sought to speak effectively and to the point. In tabling amendments to probe the issues that have arisen, he is behaving quite reasonably. For the most part he has not spoken at inordinate length, although I cannot say the same for his colleagues. 
 Last night, my assertion about the use of the usual channels was challenged, and I want to return to that issue. In fairness, the Opposition have made it clear from the outset that in their view insufficient time has been allowed for consideration of the Bill, and they have argued for a finishing date later than 8 March. Although we do not agree with them in that regard, we have been prepared at all times to agree programming informally, through the usual channels and without the need for a guillotine, so as to ensure proper consideration of the Bill throughout. However, my hon. Friend the Whip has found it difficult to secure agreement on those points. 
 I contrast that with last night, when the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a commitment to try to reach the end of schedule 1 by the end of today. I accepted that commitment implicitly, immediately and without question, and as a result I have amended the programming resolution to remove the guillotine in respect of that point. However, he could offer no further commitments. That is his prerogative, but we therefore decided that the guillotine process must be retained, and I shall once again explain why, in order to make matters as clear as possible. The Committee must consider properly all the issues with which the Bill deals. We cannot allow an entire chunk of clauses to fall off the end simply because we did not guillotine. The Opposition have given no assurance that they will honour that process, so there is no choice but to retain the guillotine. 
 I know that the charge will be made that we are being arrogant and are not listening to Parliament, but I do not accept that for one moment. We have sought to discuss matters in the best possible way, and to address issues of substance rather than playing to an audience by making rhetorical debating points. All Government members of the Committee—in particular, my ministerial colleague and I—have conducted the debate in that way, and that is the way in which we shall continue. 
 I shall conclude by repeating the offer that I made last night. We would be absolutely open to reaching agreement through the usual channels on an approach to timetabling that is informal in every respect, and to an additional meeting to debate further matters in a different way. For example, last night we were ready to agree to an evening sitting next Wednesday, Budget day. You rightly said, Mr. Gale, that we needed some certainty about a programme for Budget day, but no agreement could be reached on how to proceed, so we had no choice but to act as we have. 
 The Opposition's approach to this matter is informed by party political electioneering in the light of a possible general election. They are trying to argue that there has been insufficient time to consider the Bill, but their argument is false and I hope that the Committee will support the Government by supporting the motion.

Roger Gale: Before we embark on debate on this matter—I shall add a minute to our proceedings to allow for what I am about to say—I want to make a personal observation. It is regrettable that proceedings of the Sub-Committee are not minuted. Although members of the Committee may attend as observers—indeed, last night one did—that is not always possible. A written record would be helpful because the meetings are informal and not a matter of record, so comment on the proceedings can be reported only through the eyes of those who were present.
 I understand that hon. Members have strong views—they would probably not be Members of Parliament had they not. I also understand that occasionally those views will be expressed forcefully. However, I must make it plain that I deprecate acrimony and will not tolerate unparliamentary or discourteous behaviour. Since I joined the Chairmen's Panel, every Committee that I have chaired has been courteous and harmonious within the bounds of proper political disagreement. I am certain that the Committee will want to continue in that vein.

Oliver Heald: I would not want the Committee to think that I said anything rude or unparliamentary in yesterday's Sub-Committee. I have always thought that courtesy is important and I have always been extremely courteous to the Minister. However, one is entitled to be angry if one feels that the Government are interfering with something important—namely proper scrutiny.
 I sat on criminal justice Bills when we were in government, when I listened to Opposition Members and thought, ``Gosh, that is a tedious point. They are going on at tremendous length.'' The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill was subject to 240 hours of scrutiny, but we did not guillotine it because we felt that it was important. One may argue that we guillotined other legislation, but when it came to Committee we tried to allow the Opposition enough time. 
 Labour Members may think that we have been going on at great length in this Committee, but the Minister disagreed. He said many times that we were making good points and debating seriously. It is worth remembering the Home Secretary's view when he was in opposition: 
 ``Careful scrutiny is one of the best guarantors of good legislation.''—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 339.] 
On our first day in Committee, the Minister, who was making his first point on the first clause, said: 
 ``Many valid issues have been raised.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 26.] 
In the debate on unlawful street trading, he conceded that we had made a good point: 
 ``I am ready to think again about the hon. Gentleman's point and see whether we might consider widening the scope in the way he suggested.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 31.] 
In the same debate, the Parliamentary Secretary immediately accepted one of our amendments. He said: 
 ``The amendment deals with whether subsection (5) should be changed so that positive resolution procedure was required.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 38.] 
He then agreed that that should happen. 
 In the afternoon sitting, the Minister said: 
 ``This is an entirely legitimate debate. There was a wide range of evidence from different bodies in the consultation process.'' 
He continued: 
 ``I was at pains to tell the hon. Gentleman that his amendment was perfectly reasonable.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 79-81.] 
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has also expressed sympathy with our views. He said: 
 ``It would be a mistake if people who, under normal circumstances, were entitled to criminal compensation found themselves deprived.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 86.] 
In a later sitting, the Minister described an Opposition amendment as ``perfectly well meaning.'' He also discussed the Opposition's many contributions to 
``what was nevertheless a serious debate''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2001; c. 105.] 
He mentioned that we had made ``points of substance''. 
 The Minister also applauded the serious approach to the Committee adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. He referred to 
``the spirit of constructive inquiry.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2001; c. 146.] 
He said: 
 ``I commend the issues identified by Opposition Members for inclusion in the guidance . . . Some of the issues that have been identified, particularly in relation to restorative justice, are serious and appropriate.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2001; c. 166-7.] 
Who made those suggestions? It was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the former Attorney-General, who has been so castigated today. He is also a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It had important business that clashed with the business of this Committee. He was entitled to be away from the sitting. He should not be criticised.

Stephen Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: Not at the moment.
 The attitude of the Opposition to the Bill is not wrong. The criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath with regard to the Criminal Bar Association is misplaced. I have read the file of submissions that came from outside bodies about fixed penalty notices. The Criminal Bar Association was referred to because it was the only organisation to come up with a detailed analysis of the Bill. I do not accept the charge that my hon. Friend has misbehaved. The length of time spent on clause 1 was not unreasonable, given the Minister's own comments, which I hope will be documented fully in the record of our proceedings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire should not be criticised. In fact, he has made some acute legal points, which Ministers have acknowledged as such. 
 That brings me back to whether the Committee was allowed enough time in the first place. The Minister must agree that I am always consistent about the matter. Not enough time has been allocated to us. A 132-clause Bill such as this probably needs 18 to 20 sittings. Originally, he offered us 16. He went back on that proposal after the Sub-Committee met and offered us 14. It is wrong to say, ``You've had evening sessions on Tuesday. They can count as extra sittings.'' They do not. 
 The original proposal was that we could sit on Tuesday evenings. It did not mention our having to finish at a particular time. If it had, we would have opposed it. We were entitled to long Tuesdays. We wanted extra days, which we have not had. It was extremely bad to offer that timetable and to mislead the House—inadvertently, I am sure. The Minister told the House that we would have 16 sittings. He then offered 14. He is now offering us 15, and we are supposed to be grateful. We are not. 
 The programme motion suggests that, on the last day, we should deal with 50 clauses and the remaining schedules. It is laughable. The Opposition should not be treated like that. It was always the case that, for a Committee to be guillotined, members had to have misbehaved. It was an insult to the Opposition to guillotine a Committee. In this case, I do not think that the Government have reached their decision because of time wasting. It has been done to fit in with their election timetable. It is an outrage. The Minister said that I used bad language towards him. I did not use bad language in the sense of calling him anything personal, but I am annoyed about the matter and he should be privately, quietly ashamed. If we want proper democracy in this country, the ability to debate matters and to ensure that matters are subjected to the careful scrutiny to which the Home Secretary referred, we need time to make our points. 
 I agree with the Minister that we should be able to debate Huntingdon Life Sciences next Tuesday. I want to do that. It was my idea, and it is important to people who want scientists to be protected. However, he need not take credit for that. We suggested such a debate. The fact that he agrees is good, but it does not get away from the fact that, overall, the timetable is a sorry disgrace.

Paul Clark: Bearing in mind the comments that have been made about the procedure of the Programming Sub-Committee not being recorded, I do not intend to deal with what might have happened. I want to deal with the facts. The Opposition's position vis-a-vis programming motions is well known. It is not officially recorded in terms of the Sub-Committee, but it is well known and well documented from the Floor of the House and in our proceedings from columns 3 to 11 of the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings. That is clearly laid out. We can repeat that ad infinitum, but we are using up time in which we could be looking at the issues that matter and delivering the provisions of the Bill—which is, I suspect, what we all want to do.
 The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has just talked about the business of wanting to deliver, and to discuss properly the new clauses. The new resolution from the Programming Sub-Committee picks up what is clearly recorded in the Official Report, when the hon. Gentleman said that the most important issues were being raised under the new clauses 
``but they will not be considered until the end of the Committee.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 6.] 
Clearly, that issue has been taken on board in the new programming motion because of concerns expressed not only by Opposition Members but by my hon. Friends and other interested parties.

Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Clark: No, I will not, because time is short.
 The matter has been taken on board and clearly laid out in the new resolution. With due respect, we talk about wanting proper democracy. I would not disagree, but I suspect that proper democracy for Mr. and Mrs. Smith in Gillingham or, dare I suggest, for Mr. and Mrs. Smith in North-East Hertfordshire is about how they can go about their business without the threat of being abused in the street, meeting drunken people with disorderly behaviour, or people trespassing on the railways. That is clearly what is in the interests of democracy. I would suggest that were we to discuss with our constituents the number of hours that are programmed to deliver the Bill, they would want the provisions to be delivered rather than for us to devote endless hours to them. 
 I accept that there is always a case to be made for giving a Bill endless hours of discussion. However, when we have got on with business—on Tuesday, for example—as the Minister suggested, many good points arose from proper and sensible discussion. Clearly, we should be trying to deliver what is in the interests of people and democracy in a proper way, with reasonable opportunity for discussion in Committee.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I will oppose the motion. We made our opposition to the timetable apparent at the beginning, and things have got worse rather than better. First, by virtue of the fact that we now have sittings on Thursday mornings that stop before the House sits, we effectively get only one and a half hours. In the old days, morning sittings were normally two and a half hours, so on each of those three occasions, we lose one hour, making three in total. We sat late for half an hour on one occasion and for an hour and ten minutes on the other. Therefore, we have hardly made up the lost time that has not been allocated by late sittings.
 Secondly, there is now a proposal before the Committee that we make up for the lost time in an additional sitting. In itself, that is welcome, but it is scheduled for Wednesday morning. The business in Westminster Hall at that time is a debate on the United Nations convention on human rights, in which some of us have an interest that falls directly within our responsibilities. It is hardly convenient or sensible for a Committee on home affairs business to be sitting when there is a direct relationship with other business that we may want to attend. 
 We are perfectly happy that the new clauses come at the end of the section that we are dealing with in schedule 1—that is entirely proper. However, I have just observed that we now have a guillotine that requires us, by the end of next Tuesday, to deal with underage drinking, travel restrictions, intimidation of witnesses, other witness matters, the curfew issue—which is extremely controversial—and disclosure of material. The Government have already tabled seven new clauses and 43 amendments to be debated by the end of that time. 
 A proper Committee structure does not allow time to debate such a proposal. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark). If our constituents realised how intent our Government so often are in so many ways on pushing through legislation, when most Labour Back Benchers say nothing most of the time and the only chance to scrutinise is given to Opposition Members who are willing to speak up and time is so limited, they would find our democracy increasingly unrepresentative. That will discredit the hon. Gentleman's party in government as well as Parliament as a whole.

Nick Hawkins: I was the Member who sat through the entire Programming Sub-Committee, although I am not a member of it, to observe its proceedings. In his personally directed remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, a distinguished former Attorney-General, the Minister once again lived down to my expectations. You, Mr. Gale, have pointed out that it is only a parliamentary convention that hon. Members should be warned in advance if another Member wants to make remarks about them. The Minister said that he has not done so on this occasion. For Ministers of State deliberately to ignore a parliamentary convention that has been observed down the years is appalling. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire says, the Minister should be ashamed of himself. However, I do not expect the Minister to be ashamed of himself.
 Listening to the Minister for the first time, some people might believe that he sometimes gives the impression of being reasonable. Those of us who have got to know him during consideration of previous Bills know that whenever the Minister has an opportunity to make an attack he does so below the belt in precisely the way that he did about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire this morning. I believe that he will come to regret that. It was, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) says, disgraceful. 
 I am present, and I— 
 It being 30 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000.]

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale: I am not taking a point of order during a Division.
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Resolved, 
 That the Programming Order of the Committee of 6th February be amended—
 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting at the end the words ``and on Wednesday 7th March at half-past Ten o'clock''.
 (2) in paragraph (3), by substituting ``15'' for ``14''
 (3) in paragraph (4)—
(a) by inserting the words ``New Clauses'' after the words ``Schedule 1''; and
(b) by omitting the words ``New Clauses'' where they appear after the words ``Clause 132'';
 (4) by substituting the following for paragraph (5)—
``(5) the proceedings at the 9th to 15th sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE SittingProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings 9thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3 — 10thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 11thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 12thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 310.00 pm 13thClauses 70 to 851.00 pm 14thClause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules— 15thClause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules5.00 pm

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. You will have seen that I tried to rise during the debate that we have just had on the programme motion. The Minister took up 14 minutes of a 30-minute debate on the matter, which relates to the highly controversial issue of programming. I wonder whether you might be able to take back to the Speaker, through whatever channels are available, the message that 30 minutes for such a debate is plainly inadequate, as is the entire business of programming, which does not enable someone like myself, who has, as the Minister said, been tentative and constructive in handling the Bill, even to make my views known on the programming. I have extreme views about the way in which the Government have behaved.

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister referred to the usual channels. I was keen to place on the record precisely what discussions we had had through the usual channels—I know that that is a breach of convention, but as the Minister raised the matter, it was important that I should have an opportunity to do so. I regret the curtailment of democracy this morning, and that discussion of that curtailment has itself been curtailed to only half an hour. Would it be possible to ask for an extension of such debates in future?

Roger Gale: Although those are points of interest to the Chair, they are certainly not points of order for the Chair. I have made my view known, and will make my views further known to the Chairmen's Panel, which in turn will express a view to the Modernisation Committee. It is of course open to any hon. Member to make representations to that Committee. Whether members of the Committee like it or not—and whether the Chairman likes it or not—we must operate under the rules and regulations of the House as they stand.

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale: I am not prepared to allow points of order to prolong the debate that we have just had. I call Mr. Hawkins, on an entirely separate issue, I trust.

Nick Hawkins: It is a separate issue, Mr. Gale. When you make your representations to the Modernisation Committee, would you be prepared to consider whether those who are not members of Programming Sub-Committees, but who are able to attend, should be able to speak but not vote, rather than simply attending, neither speaking nor voting?

Roger Gale: That is a perfectly valid point, and is well made; yes, I will.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, who is a member of the Programming Sub-Committee, could not attend yesterday because she was in her constituency—the date of the meeting having been fixed only after it became impossible to alter her arrangements. Given that one provision of the resolution that we have just passed is that we sit next Wednesday when the House is sitting, albeit in Westminster Hall, may I ask whether, if a preferable time for the additional sitting were discovered in informal conversation, you would be willing—because I believe that it is in your discretion—to call a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee to agree an alteration? I have objections about other matters, but that is one issue on which it may be possible to reach an accommodation across the Committee. If that were the case, would you be willing to preside over a meeting to deal with that?

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman is correct that it is open to the Chairman to receive representations concerning further sittings of the Programming Sub-Committee. If I receive such representations from the usual channels, and it appears reasonable, the Chairman is of course at the Committee's disposal and I shall endeavour to accommodate the Committee. However, I point out that we sat for a considerable time last night and the Committee has further discussed the issue this morning and has just passed the Programming Sub-Committee's resolution. At the moment, those are the terms under which the Committee will now sit. Under those terms, we have probably had sufficient discussion on the subject.

Stephen Ladyman: On a point of order, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale: One moment, Dr. Ladyman. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made the point that time is at a premium. We are now spending time discussing matters that could properly be discussed outside the Committee and informally, rather than discussing the matters that we are here to discuss formally. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a specific point to make, I propose to proceed.

Stephen Ladyman: On Second Reading, I said that I wanted amendments to the Bill to help to protect scientists, one of which was an amendment to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to prevent terrorists from acting in concert. Have you, Mr. Gale, been given any indication whether the Government intend to table such an amendment in time for us to discuss it in Committee?

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that however much Chairmen may wish it, the Government do not normally make their intentions known in advance to Chairmen of whatever party. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point, the Minister has heard it and, again, I am sure that that can be discussed informally.
 [Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Clause 27 - Enforcement of closure orders

Question proposed [27 February], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

David Lock: I rise briefly to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath about clause 27(1)(b). He questioned what was meant by the expression that a constable who is attempting to enforce a closure order may
``do anything reasonably necessary for the purpose of securing compliance with the order.'' 
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood, with a brief explanation that the constable is entitled to do anything which is reasonable that he considers necessary. If there is something which is reasonable that the constable considers necessary, it is plainly appropriate for him to be able to do it. I would not have thought that the Committee would greatly benefit from further discussion of the meaning of such plain, usual and much used words.

Nick Hawkins: I previously said that Opposition Members regard the wording as wide. We still think that. However, the Minister has given his explanation, and I shall not seek to press the matter further.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Offences by body corporate

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: The clause is perfectly reasonably intentioned, and relates to the debate about who is held liable in practice and how the corporate liability of the owner of the licensed premised is tied up with the practical liability of the person on site. Is that part of a general proposition by Government, or is it restricted to licensed premises? There are often issues in relation to liability and corporate responsibility. As I understand it, there is an implied connivance of the ownership if anybody, in any of the positions—especially a manager—is liable.

Nick Hawkins: Has the precise wording about corporate responsibility been used in other legislation? Will the Minister write to members of the Committee to tell us whether the Government intend to use such wording more widely, not only in future licensing legislation but in legislation generally, and whether there are specific precedents? If he will undertake to do that, I will be satisfied.

David Lock: The first issue raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was whether the provision was part of a general proposition by the Government to define the responsibilities of corporate owners. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of corporate governance. As far as criminal statutes are concerned, the liability of those associated with companies, who stand behind corporate entities that are responsible for ownership or control of premises, must be determined case by case. In response to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the wording of clause 28(1) is based on the equivalent clause in the City of Westminster Act 1996, which refers mainly to sex establishments, although this clause refers to alcohol establishments.
 It would not be helpful to conduct a wider trawl of legislation, whether passed under this Government or under previous Governments, for the equivalent form of words, for the reason that I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Liability must be determined case by case, depending on the mischief against which the offence is determined. We must compare like with like. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Service of notices

David Lock: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 23, line 24, leave out `a copy of'.
 This is an entirely technical amendment. Under subsection (6), a document that is to be served under clauses 21 to 28 
``shall be taken to be duly served if a copy of it is fixed in a conspicuous position on the premises which are alleged to have been used for the unlicensed sale of'' 
alcohol. To constitute proper service, there is no doubt that the document itself, rather than a copy, should be so affixed. The amendment is designed to assist those against whom this offence is directed, and I commend it to the Committee. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: Does the service of notice procedure in the Bill differ from current law? I have neither the time nor the resources to establish whether the clause will vary that procedure, so if there is a difference I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain what it is. If the procedure is exactly the same as under current law, it is clearly uncontroversial.

David Lock: The provisions for service depend on the precise circumstance in which a document is served. For example, service on an individual differs from service on premises, which is modelled on the City of Westminster Act. I am not aware of any way in which these provisions differ from other provisions of service that are customarily expected, so I do not consider them controversial.

Simon Hughes: I am prepared to accept that. Given that I gave no notice of my question, I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would ask his officials to check on this matter. As I have repeatedly said, if people are not to be caught out by technicalities, the law must be as consistent and clear as possible. We do not want to give further work to lawyers—to use the Parliamentary Secretary's phrase—by requiring them to establish whether there was service and whether people knew there was service. We must ensure that the procedures are streamlined, common and collectively similar and will apply common time limits, regardless of whether the notice is being served on an offending pub, amusement arcade, sex shop or anything else.

David Lock: The point is well made and I shall ensure that my officials look carefully at what I have said when it is published in Hansard. If there is any way in which my comments can be amplified or clarified, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and provide copies for other relevant members of the Committee.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Confiscation of alcohol containersfrom young persons

Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 24, line 11, leave out `substituted' and insert `inserted'.
 This is a technical amendment that is necessary because the purpose of the clause is to insert the required wording in section 1(1) of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997. The use of the word ``substituted'' is not appropriate, given that the clause will not substitute one set of words for another. We want to ensure consistency between the 1997 Act and the wording of this Bill in respect of the confiscation of alcohol containers from persons in designated public places. The amendment has been tabled in the interests of accuracy, and I hope that it can be agreed to.

Oliver Heald: This seems an entirely sensible amendment and we have no further comments to make.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: We dealt with the issue of open containers that might contain alcohol when we debated clause 14. I have no problem with the power to take, in certain circumstances, what looks like a can of lager, when no one could know, without taking it, whether it actually contained lager. Will the Minister assure me that there is consistency between this provision and the earlier one?
 More importantly, the Bill significantly changes the law on alcohol and alcohol-related disorder in public places and it would be beneficial if the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 was incorporated into the Bill. It seems pointless to keep a small Act, which was a private Member's Bill, on the statute book, with all the necessary cross-referencing, when it could be accommodated in the Bill. I would be happy to consider a proposal outside the Committee--I hope that Conservative Front Bench spokespeople would also be prepared to do that--to introduce a non-controversial, consolidating provision. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on my suggestion.

Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman said, we discussed our amendment to delete the words
``other than a sealed container'' 
during an earlier debate. We would be happy to take part in discussions outside the Committee and without commitment, but I want to consider further his new idea of incorporating into the Bill the good piece of legislation that was introduced by our former colleague, Dr. Robert Spink, when he represented Castle Point in the House. We need to think further about that suggestion, but we are happy to discuss it. 
 On the issue that we raised of sealed containers being used as weapons, has the Minister yet had a chance to discuss with representatives of the Police Federation and other police organisations whether an amendment on that would be useful, or are the Government considering introducing a version of our amendment on Report? We feel very strongly that it is important to protect ordinary police officers in difficult situations when dealing with drunkenness, often among young men, late at night in inner cities, when sealed containers are often used as weapons. Has he yet had discussions on that and, if not, is he planning to?

Charles Clarke: I confirm that we are still considering that matter, and my mind is not closed to it. I have not had a chance to discuss it with other organisations, because of the time involved, but it is on the agenda.
 On the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the purpose of the clause is to provide consistency and it is consistent with other provisions. His general point is interesting, important and difficult. With my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I sit on a group that considers the recommendations of the Law Commission. It is striking that Parliament has difficulty--my hon. Friend is working hard to improve matters--in considering how to address such issues. 
 The hon. Gentleman was in the House last Monday afternoon when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement on our proposals for criminal justice until 2010 and will recall the exchanges during which my right hon. Friend waved a copy of the Canadian codified law. He and the Government are committed to codification, but it is difficult to achieve and will require the all-party approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman. There are serious issues concerning parliamentary scrutiny, but in the interest of enabling people better to understand the law, we are none the less committed. 
 The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 should be incorporated into the Bill. I had not considered that, but I am prepared to find out what can be done. I commit myself to respond to him on whether that will be feasible within the necessary time scale.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his positive response. As I am sure he agrees, legislation must always have a bias in favour of doing something rather than a neutral view that it might be possible. Without being disrespectful of any individuals, there is always a civil service drag effect by which 78 reasons can be found for not doing something and Ministers need to push it over the top.

Charles Clarke: Not in the Home Office.

Simon Hughes: As the Home Secretary said to me yesterday, there have been no leaks from the Home Office recently, so I have no evidence to contradict the Minister.
 The amendment was tabled in a probing but hopeful way to ascertain whether Ministers will consider introducing this relatively small provision, on Report or in the other place. It must be in the interests of those who need to know the law to have to look in one place, not two. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Sale of intoxicating liquor toa person under eighteen

Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 24, line 19, leave out `nobody could' and insert `he could not'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 102, in page 24, line 23, after `for', insert `written'.
 No. 103, in page 24, line 23, after `age', insert `or a prescribed card'. 
 No. 104, in page 24, line 25, at end insert— 
`or the card was obviously a forgery'.
 No. 105, in page 24, line 25, at end insert— 
 `( ) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe a card or cards establishing the age of persons. 
 ( ) Such a power shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
 No. 107, in page 24, line 25, at end insert— 
 `( ) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a person shall be treated as having taken all reasonable steps to establish another person's age, if he complies with guidance that the Secretary of State may issue about the use of proof of age cards.'.

Jackie Ballard: I was not singled out in the Minister's earlier Ofsted report either for praise or blame, but I am always brief and I shall be so this time.
 It is important to restrict the sale of alcohol to people who are over the legal age. One often sees young teenagers who have obviously taken alcohol, and it is clearly far too easy for them to buy it. As the clause stands, the seller would have a defence if he could prove that nobody could reasonably have suspected from a person's appearance that he or she was under 18. We believe that the clause is too narrowly drawn. Judging someone's appearance is subjective, not objective. The seller can be responsible only for his or her judgment on the day, not for a judgment that anyone else might conceivably make. Their judgment may partly depend on their experience of teenagers—for example, their knowledge of how young girls can look many years older than their age. I recently told the Minister a story about my daughter, who was able to buy age-related products that she should not have bought when she was only 13 or 14. As she was almost 6 ft tall at the time, it would have been difficult to blame the retailer for being unaware that she was well under 18. 
 If the test is to be that nobody could reasonably have thought that the person was under 18, that inevitably leads to the view that one can be certain of someone's age only if they produce a proof-of-age card. That is the most reasonable step that can be taken to ensure that a person is of a certain age. I strongly support proof-of-age card schemes, and I recently launched one locally. The young people involved, who were from an independent school and a state school, thought that it would be helpful if they were able to buy other age-related products, of which there are a range, including fireworks and cigarettes. However, it has not been easy to persuade a large number of retailers consistently to use the scheme, so there has been a disappointingly slow take-up. If young people are not regularly asked for a proof-of-age card, there is less incentive for them to get one. 
 The logical consequence of the clause, and of the fact that there are local proof-of-age card schemes with varying degrees of success, is the introduction of a national age card scheme. The Minister has responded to that proposal in the past, and perhaps this is not the time for him to do so again in detail, but I hope that it has been seriously considered by the Home Office.

Oliver Heald: Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 and 107 would change the clause to ensure that proof-of-age cards or other written evidence would be the focus of the licensee when he or she establishes evidence of age. Obviously, underage drinking concerns the trade, the general public and all political parties, so we must tackle it.
 The industry supports initiatives related to proof-of-age cards, such as the Portman Group's ``Prove It'' scheme and ``Validate''. Furthermore, the trade is doing good work in training licensees and staff to eliminate underage sales. The effect of current proposals will be that retailers must ask to see proof of age. The concern is that unless there is an effective system that establishes the right card or document, retailers and licensees will not have the tools to police the proposed system, in which case it would be too easy for them to break the law unknowingly by selling to children who do not look their age. 
 The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the Association of Convenience Stores take the view that the Government should either have a national proof-of-age card of their own or should designate the necessary requirements for such cards. The ALMR states that it 
``echoes the recommendation of the Health Select Committee in its inquiry into the health risks of tobacco that the Government should forcibly endorse independent effective proof-of-age card schemes. The ALMR accepts that the Government may be reluctant to endorse a single commercial venture, but believes that the Government should clearly set out the criteria against which such schemes may be judged. This should include the geographic and age-related coverage of the scheme.'' 
It also points out that 
``the Alcohol and Society survey, conducted by MORI for The Portman Group, found that 83 per cent. of people support the compulsory use of proof-of-age card schemes in order to tackle under-age drinking.'' 
We should like a progress report from the Minister on his views on proof-of-age cards, which is something that I know he has discussed with the industry. We also want to know what is happening with the Department for Education and Employment Connexions card. Would the Government prefer retailers to ask for that? 
 Finally, I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton that there are difficulties for retailers in determining the age of many customers. The Association of Convenience Stores states: 
 ``A recent survey asked staff in high street shops selling age-restricted products to determine the age of five young people aged between 14 and 20. Nine out of 10 staff had difficulty in determining young people's ages. If there is to be a more stringent regime governing under-age sales with tougher penalties''— 
which is the purpose of the clause— 
``retailers need the tools to be able to police such a regime. The ACS believes that a credible and reliable proof-of-age card universally recognised and accepted by the public as a whole is the only means of giving retailers and their staff the reassurance they need''. 
Whether we are discussing is a universal card, the criteria for a clutch of cards or the DFEE Connexions card, we want to probe the Government's thinking. How will they give the people at whom the clause is aimed the tools to do the job? What should retailers ask to see, and will they be free of liability if they have seen it?

Charles Clarke: At the risk of being quoted against myself at some point in the future, I can say that this is an important issue that has been well debated and discussed. I apologise to the hon. Member for Taunton for not having been able to refer to her in my Ofsted assessment. I place it on the record that her contributions, like those of her colleague, have always been pithy and to the point.
 Amendment No. 5 would introduce a subjective rather than objective test of age by providing that the retailer does not have a duty to ask the customer for proof of age when the retailer forms the opinion that he could not reasonably have suspected from the customer's appearance that he or she was under 18. The hon. Lady referred to her own daughter as an example. We ask her to withdraw the amendment, because it would undermine the purpose of the clause by reducing the obligation on the alcohol retailer to take steps to ask for proof of age from the customer in appropriate cases. 
 The use of an objective judgment of age, based on appearance, is more desirable than a subjective estimate. It avoids the possibility of staff on licensed premises avoiding asking for proof of age on the basis of their own subjective opinion, which would be difficult to challenge in court. The amendment would deny the courts the right to test a defendant's judgment against that of an ordinary reasonable person. 
 The Committee may be interested to know that, in some interesting research by Professor Paul Willner at Swansea university, published by the Alcohol Education and Research Council last August, test purchasing studies were conducted using 13 and 16-year-olds. His research showed that many retailers who demanded to see the card—60 per cent. did not do so, which is unsurprising because that is not yet part of the culture—went on to make the sale, even when the card confirmed that the child was under age. That surprised me, but it is backed up by evidence.

Jackie Ballard: I am confused by what the Minister is saying. On one hand, he says that the only objective test is the proof-of-age card; the logic of that is that he should accept the amendments tabled by Conservative Members. On the other hand, he says that it would not be a defence to say that, on that day, the retailer judged by the person's appearance that the customer was over 18, if other people might have made a different judgment. That suggests that the court might take a group of people and ask them how old they judge the customer to be. Most people would judge a person in school uniform to be under 18, but if that person wore high heels and make-up—I am assuming that the person is female—it would be easy to believe that she was over 18.

Charles Clarke: It may be like that in Taunton, but it is not in Norwich.
 My inclination is towards the objective test and the proof-of-age card system, as I shall make clear when we discuss the other amendments. However, in having an objective test, we should not take away the obligation of the retailer to exercise his or her power in selling alcohol to young people responsibly. The amendment would increase the subjective element and diminish the objective element. Perhaps the hon. Lady will withdraw it when I have spoken about the objective test. 
 As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, amendments Nos. 102 to 105 would provide that the production of written evidence of age or a prescribed card would meet the ``all reasonable steps'' defence, unless it were shown that the evidence was such that no reasonable person would be convinced by the card, or the card was obviously a forgery. The amendments suggest that the Secretary of State may prescribe one or more cards by statutory instrument. We are sympathetic to the point. We have had substantial discussions with the industry and have concluded that the case for proof-of-age certification is powerful. We are actively considering the best way in which to deliver that, through further discussions with the industry. 
 Three different alternatives are under consideration. First, we may use the Connexions card issued by the Department for Education and Employment, which would be given to all 16 to 19-year-olds in education. It might be possible to add a proof-of-age element to that. That is attractive for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Taunton—the card would be used for other facilities as well—and it is also obviously administratively attractive and effective. We are still discussing how to proceed, but that option would be attractive if it could be achieved. It has serious limitations, because the card would be issued to all 16 to 19-year-olds in education, which begs the question of how to deal with 16 to 19-year-olds not in education. We are considering whether there is a way round that problem. 
 The second alternative that we are examining is the creation of a national structure for the wide range of proof-of-age cards that already exist, providing a framework of certification or ratification to make them work together. In many ways, that is the most attractive option, because well-established organisations that we respect greatly have worked well to develop such an approach. 
 The third option is that of a specific national proof-of-age card. We have not ruled that out, because there may well be a case for it if we cannot succeed with either of the alternatives, but it is less attractive, because it would require setting up a separate structure for what is the rather limited purpose of dealing with the proof of age for alcohol, rather than with a range of matters. 
 I emphasise, because it is important in relation to amendment No. 105, that the Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance; that does not need statutory backing, and I give the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire the absolute assurance that we are ready to do so. We are not opposed to that amendment in principle. We simply do not think that it is necessary, because guidance can be issued without statutory backing.

Oliver Heald: Our real concern is that at present a lot of youngsters are using cards that are forged or borrowed, which is unsatisfactory. There is a plethora of cards that could prove their age—anything from a student union card to a driving licence. Is it not urgent to sort out what the proof of age should be? Can the Minister give us a timetable by which the Government's deliberations will be complete and we will know what is the real proposal?

Charles Clarke: I accept that the matter is urgent. When I became a Home Office Minister and started convening the seminars on alcohol to which I have referred, which have been constructive, I was struck by the strong force of opinion from a wide range of organisations about the urgency of that matter. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timetable to satisfy him, but I can tell him that we are urgently and actively considering the matter and count it a high priority. The greatest problem in conducting discussions is that the Connexions card appears to be the best option for many reasons—it would be uniform in character and would overlap with the student union card in many colleges of further education—but we have not yet been able to find a full solution to the problem of those in the age range who are outside education. We are considering that actively and urgently.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the Minister can help us on this, but there is a strong rumour circulating in the industry that the DFEE may not be happy with the idea of its card being used in that way, because part of the purpose of the Connexions card is to give benefits to those who undertake study. Without lifting the veil too much, can he tell us whether using that card is really a runner, or whether he is really thinking that the DFEE is not keen and it would be best to go for the clutch of cards approach?

Charles Clarke: My colleagues at the DFEE are committed to that approach. This week, I met the Education and Employment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) to discuss alcohol and education, precisely to consider how to work together more effectively. However, there is the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman mentions: some people within the education system are keen that the card should be focused on that system; I understand and respect that view, but it makes reaching agreement difficult.

Simon Hughes: An issue cropped up some years ago when I took on someone who was in his last year at university. He had been involved in a trial project of age-related cards. He was about 20-years-old, but looked about 16. He worked for me periodically until he was 25, when he still looked about 17 or 18. We must bear in mind the civil liberties issue involved when those who are not necessarily at university or institutes of education might always be expected to keep producing proof of their age well into their 20s. It is the opposite case to that cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, of people who look considerably older than they are.

Charles Clarke: Identity cards are a difficult issue. The Government do not want to follow that course at the moment. Speaking personally, I do not have civil liberties objections to identity cards. There is a strong case for having one card instead of a plethora of cards. However, that is not the Government's position. The hon. Gentleman is right that such issues need to be resolved. The utility of having a card is so powerful that it is worth trying to solve the problem. As I explained to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, that is why the Government intend to take such action.
 We are sympathetic to amendments Nos. 102 to 105, but we do not believe that they are necessary. I hope that they will not be pressed to a vote. We do not agree with amendment No. 107, because it implies that guidance issued by the Secretary of State could be used to evade the responsibility not to sell to minors. It is important to reinforce the role of retailers and to say that they have an obligation under the law if they decide to trade in such products. The proof-of-age card is to help them, but it does not take away from their obligation to go through the process.

Simon Hughes: May I take the Minister back to amendment No. 5? It concerns someone being prosecuted for selling drink to someone under age when the test says that no one could reasonably have suspected from his appearance that he was under 18. Will he reflect on the question of objectivity? Strict liability should be used only with the most careful approach.

Charles Clarke: I emphasise that there is no obligation on the licensee or retailer to sell. I have no right to go into an off licence and demand that beer be sold to me. If there is any doubt, there is no obligation to sell. The British Institute of Innkeeping says in its advice to the trade that, if there is any doubt, one should not sell. That should be the position, particularly in respect of alcohol and young people. If there is doubt, the sale should not be made.
 Not long ago, I visited several off licences in the Wirral where sales were taking place to young people who were drinking high-proof alcohol in parks. I discussed that with the licensees and the retailers and they accepted the point that, along with a proof-of-age card, they need a regime that reinforces their ability to take such action and become involved in partnerships with the police and others to help them. That is the thinking behind the clause. With that, I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments.

Oliver Heald: I stress that, apart from the organisations that I have already mentioned, I have also discussed the matter with the BLRA, Whitbread, Shepherd Neame, McMullen's and other big companies involved in the industry. They feel very strongly the urgency of the Government's deciding what proof of age should be. I want to stress that point and press as strongly as I can the urgency of the problem. We need a solution. On that basis, I will not press our amendments to a vote.

Jackie Ballard: Having listened to the Minister's arguments and having thought further about the matter, I still agree with my hon. Friend for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that ``nobody could'' is a high test. The amendment, to say ``he could not'', could be criticised for allowing too much leeway. On reflection, a better amendment would have been ``a reasonable person could not''. I take on board the debate on a proof-of-age card scheme. The inexorable logic leans towards an objective test. The only way of ensuring that there is no doubt is to ask for such a scheme, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider an alternative wording of ``no reasonable person''. On those grounds, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. In preparing for the debate this morning, I realised that I needed to refer to the Licensing Act 1964. I was surprised to find that the Act as amended is not available in the Committee. The Library staff told me that, as far as they understand from volume 24 of the fourth edition of ``Halsburys Statutes'', no alteration is shown in the supplement, but it is plain from the references in the Bill that the Act has been amended since it was passed in 1964. I am at a disadvantage because I have to ask the Minister about references to the Act that I want to make in my remarks. Surely every Act to which a Bill refers ought to be available in the Committee Room, and not only those that the Clerks may deem important, especially given the wretchedly little time that we have and the speed with which we must consider the Bill in detail.

Roger Gale: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, I am advised that availability of information to the Committee is a matter for the Chair, and it is my view that the information, if not exactly to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, is in order for the Committee.

Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. If the Government can help with any of the material that the Committee and, in particular, the hon. Member for Reigate are looking for, I am happy to make a commitment that we will try to do that. The hon. Gentleman is right—the Committee needs to have all the material available. We will look at the matter and see what can be done to help the Committee and the hon. Gentleman. Clause 33 Enforcement of certain offences relating to under-age drinking

Clause 33 - Enforcement of certain offences relating to under-age drinking

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 135 in page 25, leave out lines 5 to 8.

Roger Gale: With this we will take the following amendments: No. 47, in page 25, line 17 at end add—
 `(4) A constable or an inspector of weights and measures may only request that a person under eighteen buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor, or send such a person to buy such liquor, where that constable or inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under section 169A or 169B of the Licensing Act 1964 has been committed on the premises in question within the preceding six months.'.
 No. 108, in page 25, line 17, at end insert— 
 `( ) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance— 
 (a) about requests made by constables and inspectors to persons under 18 in accordance with this section; 
 (b) about the manner in which purchases and attempted purchases are to be made under this section; 
 (c) with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with the operation of this section.'.

Crispin Blunt: I preface my remarks by making it clear that it is difficult for Back Benchers to suggest sensible amendments to Bills given all the other demands on our time as Members of Parliament. For example, under the programming motion that was approved earlier today, the Committee will have an extra sitting at the same time as an important evidence-taking sitting of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions, on which I am supposed to be serving. I will therefore have to make an uncomfortable choice about my priorities, in exactly the same way as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We are trying to complete a vast amount of detailed scrutiny of legislation in the absurdly short time given by the programming motion, and such problems make life totally impossible for Committee members who are not Front Benchers, who have other responsibilities in this House and who try to carry out a wide range of scrutiny functions as Members of Parliament. I make those comments to apologise for the fact that the amendment is probing, or must be seen as such, because I do not know its precise consequences. The Library was not able to find the information even with half an hour's notice. If the House of Commons Library is not able to produce the information, I think that I can be forgiven for not doing so.
 The amendment relates to legislative enforcement. I am worried about our capacity in the United Kingdom for gold plating legislation in terms of the way in which it is enforced. Proposed new section 169I states: 
 ``It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority in England and Wales to enforce''. 
The word ``duty'' makes the task almost the first priority of the authority's work. If anything goes wrong, and the authority has a duty imposed on it by Parliament, it will have to ensure, determinedly, officiously and zealously, regardless of whether there is a problem, that the provisions of clauses 31 and 32 are enforced. I am grateful to have been passed the appropriate part of the Bill, and I shall do my best to read it and speak at the same time. If any Member wants to intervene on me, so that I have an opportunity to read that section, I would be extremely grateful.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the duty—

Roger Gale: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman taken an intervention?

Crispin Blunt: Yes.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the duty imposed on every local weights and measures authority in England and Wales to enforce the provisions of sections 169A and 169B of the Licensing Act 1964 would relate to provisions dealing with the offence of selling to somebody under the age of 18 or of permitting a sale to somebody under the age of 18?

Crispin Blunt: Yes, that is my understanding. I am concerned about the language used by the Bill to place that duty on every local weights and measures authority. I do not know whether the Licensing Act 1964 or other legislation, as it relates to local weights and measures authorities when they are given a responsibility to take action in relation to certain affairs, encapsulates that duty. I presume that the weights and measures authority officiously prosecuted a gentleman in the north-east who wanted to sell bananas by the pound rather than by the kilogram. Most people consider that an absurd prosecution, but those responsible could not exercise any discretion in carrying out their duty, presumably because of how the legislation was framed.
 If the provision were removed, presumably the duty, or responsibility, would still lie with weights and measures authorities to test the powers provided in clauses 31 and 32. However, if no particular problem was experienced in an authority's area with people under the age of 18— 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.